I read this news that two snatch thieves were killed after a person chase him by car. After the woman who has robbed screamed for help, the man who chase the thieves rammed into the thieves' motorcycle and killing the robber and injuring his accomplice.

Now under the law, would the samaritan be pressed charge or faced jail time?

(Original post by kka25)
Is 'revenge' the word to describe the situation here? The guy in the car was just trying to get back the stolen goods and catch the thieves.

I'd call it revenge or retribution. He obviously thought that it was okay to cause them injury or death in order to get back the purse or whatever was snatched, because they stole it in the first place.

yes, as he wasnt threatened and the thieves were running away he went after them.
probably manslaughter at the least, rather unfortunate really the system seems to be grossly in favour of parasites like the robbers.

I'd be inclined to say the robbers brought it upon themselves by going on a motorbike. If they had been on foot you could stop them with a relatively safe rugby tackle, but they put themselves in danger by going high speed so it's their fault. How else do you stop someone who's on a motorbike?

Ok you can get their license plate and hope the cops get round to it, but the above is a much better outcome for the victim, and I'm not too fussed about risk-taking criminals.

(Original post by Hopple)
I'd be inclined to say the robbers brought it upon themselves by going on a motorbike. If they had been on foot you could stop them with a relatively safe rugby tackle, but they put themselves in danger by going high speed so it's their fault. How else do you stop someone who's on a motorbike?

Ok you can get their license plate and hope the cops get round to it, but the above is a much better outcome for the victim, and I'm not too fussed about risk-taking criminals.

Definately not a better outcome for the samaritan who will now be facing a manslaughter or murder conviction.

(Original post by Anna150)
Definately not a better outcome for the samaritan who will now be facing a manslaughter or murder conviction.

I doubt it, motor vehicles have some weird laws that mean you're only done for (death by) dangerous driving rather than manslaughter or murder. But yes, the law should change because the samaritan has helped the victim and he shouldn't be punished for that.

(Original post by Hopple)
I doubt it, motor vehicles have some weird laws that mean you're only done for (death by) dangerous driving rather than manslaughter or murder. But yes, the law should change because the samaritan has helped the victim and he shouldn't be punished for that.

Ah you're right. He couldn't be tried for manslaughter, it'd be death by dangerous driving. He could still be tried for murder though if he crashed into them on purpose. There was a guy a couple of months ago who was charged with murder after a hit-and-run.

I have little sympathy for the thieves, but we'd be in a big mess if we made it legal for everyone to take the law into their own hands in order to get back their property. Everyone has a right to a fair trial, which can't happen if we go beating people to death before they can be arrested. I know someone is going to say 'Well that lady has the right not to have her property stolen', but still i think it's something that should be dealt with in a courtroom.

I feel sorry for the samaritan. If scum like those thieves are going to go a-robbing, then they got their just desserts. They'd have only gone to jail (at best, and that's if they were caught and tried) and cost the taxpayer (and that probabl means the robbed woman, ironically enough!!) money to keep them!!

I doubt very much that killing the thieves is what the samaritan intended; it looks to me like manslaughter, though the post above says that won't be the charge; whatever he gets, it won't look good on him. I believe from what I have read here that the thieves deserved what they got, and at least they won't be robbing anyone again...

(Original post by Anna150)
Ah you're right. He couldn't be tried for manslaughter, it'd be death by dangerous driving. He could still be tried for murder though if he crashed into them on purpose. There was a guy a couple of months ago who was charged with murder after a hit-and-run.

I think the only way you're going to be convicted of murder with car as the weapon is if you reverse over them deliberately after knocking them down. Otherwise you can easily claim you just wanted to hit them rather than kill them.

I have little sympathy for the thieves, but we'd be in a big mess if we made it legal for everyone to take the law into their own hands in order to get back their property. Everyone has a right to a fair trial, which can't happen if we go beating people to death before they can be arrested. I know someone is going to say 'Well that lady has the right not to have her property stolen', but still i think it's something that should be dealt with in a courtroom.

That's what I was referring to in my initial post, there is no safe way to stop a motorbike so the samaritan shouldn't be faulted (he used the minimum force allowed, or thereabouts). Aren't shop security guards allowed to physically 'capture' thieves? It's the thieves' faults for putting themselves in a dangerous getaway.

As for a fair trial, it's not as if the samaritan was trying to dole out justice, merely stop the thieves so the lady's stuff could be returned.